well this thread pretty much died. Bummer. It seemed like such a good idea to me. :/
I think I will just blame Loui for killing it. Loui! Idea killer! boo. hiss!!
On 12/29/08, Loui Chang email@example.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 12:54:38AM +0900, Callan Barrett wrote:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 12:38 AM, Sebastian Nowicki firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
The only downside to this that I see is the loss of the political separation of community from the official repositories. There always seemed to be a wall between the two, with community being an "unsupported" repository. If this repository shows up on the main website, it would seem as though it is officially supported. I'm not sure how that affects the developers.
Personally, I see that as a massive upside. The wall between TUs and normal developers can be really annoying. Community is already officially supported anyway since it's enabled by default now, if TUs are treating community as though it's not official they're treating it wrong.
Well, the TUs don't really have control over Arch Linux defaults.
I think the idea behind community is that it's a bit of a testing grounds for future official packagers. So quality and usefulness of the repo is important but not as important as core or extra.
Community is the bridge between unsupported and extra. I believe that correlation should remain pretty explicit as it is now. If community is brought on as another official repo, then the distinction between extra and community is eliminated. Why not just add those packages to extra then?
What we really need is a system that can adapt to any type of repo, source based, or binary based. AUR is probably the closest to achieving that, but it has a number of limitations.
We'd overcome that by designing a new system.
We should be using the same tools for the repos, but I think community should remain a distinct part of AUR.